- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 19th Nov., 2003, Annex. 3, deciding two appeals for the same asst. yr. 1998 -99. Appeal No. 138 having been filed by the assessee and Appeal No. 161 having been filed by the Revenue.
(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 12th July, 2004, while framing the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,35,958 on account of income from lease rent made by the AO and as upheld by the learned CIT(A) specially when the assessee was maintaining books of accounts on mercantile method as provided under Section 145 of the IT Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) regarding deletion of insurance charges of Rs. 1,15,828 on the plea that actual payment was made by the assessee (lessor) whereas the same was to be borne by the lessee as per the lease agreement? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of disallowance of salary expenses at Rs. 11,51,200 paid to its director's relatives when no services were actually rendered by the employees? (iv) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in facts as well as in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) regarding directing the AO to consider the payment of salary to spouse in the hands of directors in the light of provisions of Section 64 of the IT Act? Arguing the appeal, the learned Counsel for the Revenue read to us all the impugned judgments including the judgment of the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel and have gone through the judgments cited at the bar and the relevant provisions of law as well, and have also gone through the record.;